Maximum power, optimal load and optimal power spectrum for power training in upper-body (bench press): a review

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Differences in Mean Propulsive Velocity between Men and Women in Different Exercises

The purpose of this paper was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies examining the differences in the mean propulsive velocities between men and women in the different exercises studied (squat, bench press, inclined bench press and military press). Quality Assessment and Validity Tool for Correlational Studies was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Six studies of good and excellent methodological quality were included. Our meta-analysis compared men and women at the three most significant loads of the force-velocity profile (30, 70 and 90% of 1RM). A total of six studies were included in the systematic review, with a total sample of 249 participants (136 men and 113 women). The results of the main meta-analysis indicated that the mean propulsive velocity is lower in women than men in 30% of 1RM (ES = 1.30 ± 0.30; CI: 0.99-1.60; p < 0.001) and 70% of 1RM (ES = 0.92 ± 0.29; CI: 0.63, 1.21; p < 0.001). In contrast, for the 90% of the 1RM (ES = 0.27 ± 0.27; CI: 0.00, 0.55), we did not find significant differences (p = 0.05). Our results support the notion that prescription of the training load through the same velocity could cause women to receive different stimuli than men.

Bilateral index, power, force, and velocity during bench press with different loads in male handball players

Bilateral index for upper limbs was determined for maximal force, speed and power in 18 male handball players. Variables were individually assessed with a functional electromechanical dynamometer during unilateral and bilateral bench press push-off for 40%, 60%, and 75% of the maximal isometric force. Limb dominance (symmetry indices) and load effects in the bilateral index were analysed. Bilateral index showed a bilateral deficit for power (range = -8.50 to -41.48) and velocity (range = -11.15 to -38.41), that increases with the load (p < 0.05). For maximum force, a bilateral facilitation (range = 2.26-5.57), which did not vary significantly as a function of load, was observed. Symmetry indices showed no association with the bilateral index (40% load: r = 0.45, 60% load: r = 0.05, 75% load: r = 0.39). These results contribute to understanding the phenomenon; however, individual-to-individual observation reflects that caution should be kept when assessing an individual athlete. In conclusion, bilateral deficit or facilitation for bench press depends on the variable considered, whereas its magnitude depends on the load. Moreover, limb dominance does not affect it. This finding must be regarded as a general trend, but a different situation may occur during the assessment of a particular athlete.

Biomechanical, Anthropometric and Psychological Determinants of Barbell Bench Press Strength

The purpose of this study was to improve our understanding of the relative contributions of biomechanical, anthropometric, and psychological factors in explaining maximal bench press (BP) strength in a heterogeneous, resistance-trained sample. Eighteen college-aged participants reported to the laboratory for three visits. The first visit consisted of psychometric testing. The second visit assessed participants' anthropometrics, additional psychometric outcomes, and bench press one repetition maximum (1RM). Participants performed isometric dynamometry testing for horizontal shoulder adduction and elbow extension at a predicted sticking point joint position. Multiple linear regression was used to examine the relationships between the biomechanical, anthropometric, and psychological variables and BP 1RM. Our primary multiple linear regression accounted for 43% of the variance in BP strength (F(3,14) = 5.34, p = 0.01; R² = 0.53; adjusted R² = 0.43). The sum of peak isometric net joint moments from the shoulder and elbow had the greatest standardized effect (0.59), followed by lean body mass (0.27) and self-efficacy (0.17). The variance in BP 1RM can be similarly captured (R² = 0.48) by a single principal component containing anthropometric, biomechanics, and psychological variables. Pearson correlations with BP strength were generally greater among anthropometric and biomechanical variables as compared to psychological variables. These data suggest that BP strength among a heterogeneous, resistance-trained population is explained by multiple factors and is more strongly associated with physical than psychological variables.

Changes in EMG and movement velocity during a set to failure against different loads in the bench press exercise

This study examined changes in movement velocity and surface electromyographic (sEMG) activity of the pectoralis major (PM) and triceps brachii (TB) muscles during the bench press exercise to failure against different loads. Fourteen men performed a set to failure with maximum intended velocity, against low (40%-1 repetition maximum-RM), moderate (60%-1RM), and heavy loads (80%-1RM). Number of repetitions, volume load, mean and peak velocity, and total time increased with decreasing load (40% > 60% > 80%, p < 0.01). sEMG comparisons between different loads were performed by matching time under tension at the initial, middle, and last part of the set. sEMG was higher in the middle and last repetitions, compared with the initial, for all loads in both muscles (p < 0.001). sEMG activity of both muscles was higher in the 60% and 80%-1RM conditions compared with the 40%1-RM (p < 0.007). Also, sEMG of both muscles was similar for the 60%-1RM and 80%-1RM loads at the initial, middle, and last repetitions, with the exception of the last repetitions for the TB muscle. In contrast, sEMG integrated activity was higher for the 40% 1-RM and 60% 1-RM (p < 0.01) compared with the 80% 1-RM load. Mean velocity loss at exhaustion and drop in sEMG median frequency were greater in the 40% and 60%-1RM compared with the 80%-1RM condition (p < 0.05). It was concluded that performing a set to exhaustion with maximum intended velocity using a load of 60% 1-RM combines the characteristics of the high average sEMG activity of heavier loads, and the high total integrated sEMG observed at lighter loads.

Mechanical and Metabolic Responses to Traditional and Cluster Set Configurations in the Bench Press Exercise

García-Ramos, A, González-Hernández, JM, Baños-Pelegrín, E, Castaño-Zambudio, A, Capelo-Ramírez, F, Boullosa, D, Haff, GG, and Jiménez-Reyes, P. Mechanical and metabolic responses to traditional and cluster set configurations in the bench press exercise. J Strength Cond Res 34(3): 663-670, 2020-This study aimed to compare mechanical and metabolic responses between traditional (TR) and cluster (CL) set configurations in the bench press exercise. In a counterbalanced randomized order, 10 men were tested with the following protocols (sets × repetitions [inter-repetition rest]): TR1: 3 × 10 (0-second), TR2: 6 × 5 (0-second), CL5: 3 × 10 (5-second), CL10: 3 × 10 (10-second), and CL15: 3 × 10 (15-second). The number of repetitions (30), interset rest (5 minutes), and resistance applied (10 repetition maximum) were the same for all set configurations. Movement velocity and blood lactate concentration were used to assess the mechanical and metabolic responses, respectively. The comparison of the first and last set of the training session revealed a significant decrease in movement velocity for TR1 (Effect size [ES]: -0.92), CL10 (ES: -0.85), and CL15 (ES: -1.08) (but not for TR2 [ES: -0.38] and CL5 [ES: -0.37]); while blood lactate concentration was significantly increased for TR1 (ES: 1.11), TR2 (ES: 0.90), and CL5 (ES: 1.12) (but not for CL10 [ES: 0.03] and CL15 [ES: -0.43]). Based on velocity loss, set configurations were ranked as follows: TR1 (-39.3 ± 7.3%) > CL5 (-20.2 ± 14.7%) > CL10 (-12.9 ± 4.9%), TR2 (-10.3 ± 5.3%), and CL15 (-10.0 ± 2.3%). The set configurations were ranked as follows based on the lactate concentration: TR1 (7.9 ± 1.1 mmol·L) > CL5 (5.8 ± 0.9 mmol·L) > TR2 (4.2 ± 0.7 mmol·L) > CL10 (3.5 ± 0.4 mmol·L) and CL15 (3.4 ± 0.7 mmol·L). These results support the use of TR2, CL10, and CL15 for the maintenance of high mechanical outputs, while CL10 and CL15 produce less metabolic stress than TR2.

Movement velocity can be used to estimate the relative load during the bench press and leg press exercises in older women

Background

Movement velocity has been proposed as an effective tool to prescribe the load during resistance training in young healthy adults. This study aimed to elucidate whether movement velocity could also be used to estimate the relative load (i.e., % of the one-repetition maximum (1RM)) in older women.

Methods

A total of 22 older women (age = 68.2 ± 3.6 years, bench press 1RM = 22.3 ± 4.7 kg, leg press 1RM = 114.6 ± 15.9 kg) performed an incremental loading test during the free-weight bench press and the leg press exercises on two separate sessions. The mean velocity (MV) was collected with a linear position transducer.

Results

A strong linear relationship between MV and the relative load was observed for the bench press (%1RM = −130.4 MV + 119.3; r² = 0.827, standard error of the estimate (SEE) = 6.10%1RM, p < 0.001) and leg press exercises (%1RM = −158.3 MV + 131.4; r² = 0.913, SEE = 5.63%1RM, p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the bench press and leg press exercises for the MV attained against light-medium relative loads (≤70%1RM), while the MV associated with heavy loads (≥80%1RM) was significantly higher for the leg press.

Conclusions

These results suggest that the monitoring of MV could be useful to prescribe the loads during resistance training in older women. However, it should be noted that the MV associated with a given %1RM is significantly lower in older women compared to young healthy individuals.

Loading Range for the Development of Peak Power in the Close-Grip Bench Press versus the Traditional Bench Press

The close-grip bench press (CGBP) is a variation of the traditional bench press (TBP) that uses a narrower grip (~95% biacromial distance) and has application for athletes performing explosive arm actions where the hands are positioned close to the torso. Limited research has investigated CGBP peak power. Twenty-six strength-trained individuals completed a one-repetition maximum TBP and CGBP. During two other sessions, subjects completed two repetitions as explosively as possible with loads from 20% to 90% for each exercise, with peak power measured by a linear position transducer. A factorial ANOVA calculated between- and within-exercise differences in peak power. Partial correlations controlling for sex determined relationships between absolute and relative strength and peak power load. Peak power for the TBP occurred at 50% 1RM, and 30% 1RM for the CGBP. There were no significant (p = 0.680) differences between peak power at each load when comparing the TBP and CGBP. For the within-exercise analysis, there were generally no significant differences in TBP and CGBP peak power for the 20⁻50% 1RM loads. There were no significant relationships between strength and peak power load (p = 0.100⁻0.587). A peak power loading range of 20⁻50% 1RM for the TBP and CGBP is suggested for strength-trained individuals.

Power output in traditional and ballistic bench press in elite athletes: Influence of training background

This study aimed to compare the power production in traditional bench-press (TBP) and ballistic bench-throw (BBT) exercises. Furthermore, we assessed the differences in velocity, force, and power outputs between TBP and BBT. Finally, we tested the differences between the loads used to optimize power (optimum power load; OPL) in both exercises, using three distinct power-variables: mean power (MP), mean propulsive power (MPP), and peak power (PP). Sixty athletes from different sports were divided into two groups, according to their training characteristics: hypertrophy-based trained athletes (HTA), thirty-one athletes performing hypertrophy training programmes for (at least) 12-weeks; and power-based trained athletes (PTA), twenty-nine athletes performing power-oriented training sessions for (at least) 12-weeks. Magnitude-based inferences were used to test for differences between groups. Independent of the variable analyzed (MP, MPP, or PP), the PTA produced greater power values in BBT, whereas the HTA generated higher outputs during TBP. The OPL in the HTA was likely heavier in TBP than in BBT, whereas no differences related to this variable were found in the PTA. Despite the apparent superiority of ballistics to produce power, it seems that in elite athletes, the strength-power training routine might affect the ability to apply high forces at very-high velocities.

The Optimal Load for Maximal Power Production During Upper-Body Resistance Exercises: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

External mechanical power is considered to be one of the most important characteristics with regard to sport performance.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine the effect of load on kinetic variables such as mean and peak power during bench press and bench press throw, thus integrating the findings of various studies to provide the strength and conditioning professional with more reliable evidence upon which to base their program design.

METHODS

A search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science) was conducted to identify all publications up to 31 October 2015. Hedges' g (95 % confidence interval) was estimated using a weighted random-effect model, due to the heterogeneity (I ²) of the studies. Egger's test was used to evaluate possible publication bias in the meta-analysis. A total of 11 studies with 434 subjects and 7680 effect sizes met the inclusion criterion and were included in the statistical analyses. Load in each study was labeled as one of three intensity zones: zone 1 represented an average intensity ranging from 0 to 30 % of one repetition maximum (1RM); zone 2 between 30 and 70 % of 1RM; and zone 3 ≥ 70 % of 1RM.

RESULTS

These results showed different optimal loads for each exercise examined. Moderate loads (from >30 to <70 % of 1RM) appear to provide the optimal load for peak power and mean power in the bench press exercise. Lighter loads (<30 % of 1RM) appear to provide the highest mean and highest peak power production in the bench press throw exercise. However, a substantial heterogeneity was detected I ² > 75 %.

CONCLUSION

The current meta-analysis of published literature provides evidence for exercise-specific optimal power loading for upper body exercises.

A New Approach to EMG Analysis of Closed-Circuit Movements Such as the Flat Bench Press

BACKGROUND

The bench press (BP) is a complex exercise demanding high neuromuscular activity. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to identify the patterns of muscular activity of the prime movers on both sides of an elite powerlifter.

METHODS

A World Champion (RAW PR 320 kg) participated in the study (age: 34 years; body mass: 103 kg; body height 1.72 m; one-repetition maximum (1 RM) flat bench press: 220 kg). The subject performed one repetition of the flat bench press with: 70% 1 RM (150 kg) and 90% 1 RM (200 kg) in tempos: 2 s eccentric and 1 s concentric phase; 6 s eccentric and 1 s concentric phase). The activity was recorded for: pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, and triceps brachii (lateral and long head).

RESULTS

The total sum of peak muscle activity for the four analyzed muscles during both phases of the BP with the different loads and tempos was significantly different, and greater on the right side of the body.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of lighter loads activate muscle groups in a different activation level, allowing for a greater muscle control. Lifting submaximal and maximal loads causes an activation of most motor units involved in the movement. Experienced athletes have a stabilized neuromuscular pattern for lifting which has different bilateral activity contribution.

Optimal Load and Power Spectrum During Jerk and Back Jerk in Competitive Weightlifters

Flores, FJ, Sedano, S, and Redondo, JC. Optimal load and power spectrum during jerk and back jerk in competitive weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res 31(3): 809-816, 2017-Although the ability to develop high levels of power is considered as a key component of success in many sporting activities, the optimal load (Pmax load) that maximizes power output (Pmax) remains controversial mainly during weightlifting movements. The aim of the present study was to determine Pmax load and optimal power spectrum (OPS) required to elicit Pmax by comparing jerk and back jerk exercises in competitive weightlifters. Thirteen male competitive weightlifters participated in 2 testing sessions. The first session involved performing one repetition maximum (1RM) in the back jerk and jerk and the second session assessed a power test across a spectrum of loads (30-90%) of each subject's 1RM in the predetermined exercises tested. Relative load had a significant effect on peak power, with Pmax load being obtained at 90% of the subjects' 1RM in both exercises assessed. There was no significant difference between the power outputs at 80% of 1RM compared with 90% of 1RM. Furthermore, Pmax load and OPS were the same for jerk and back jerk, whereas peak power in the back jerk demonstrated no significant increases in every load of the power-load curve. We can conclude that it may be advantageous to use loads equivalent to 80-90% of the 1RM in jerk and back jerk in competitive weightlifters when training to maximize power.

A systematic review of surface electromyography analyses of the bench press movement task

BACKGROUND

The bench press exercise (BP) plays an important role in recreational and professional training, in which muscle activity is an important multifactorial phenomenon. The objective of this paper is to systematically review electromyography (EMG) studies performed on the barbell BP exercise to answer the following research questions: Which muscles show the greatest activity during the flat BP? Which changes in muscle activity are related to specific conditions under which the BP movement is performed?

STRATEGY

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library were searched through June 10, 2016. A combination of the following search terms was used: bench press, chest press, board press, test, measure, assessment, dynamometer, kinematics and biomechanics. Only original, full-text articles were considered.

RESULTS

The search process resulted in 14 relevant studies that were included in the discussion. The triceps brachii (TB) and pectoralis major (PM) muscles were found to have similar activity during the BP, which was significantly higher than the activity of the anterior deltoid. During the BP movement, muscle activity changes with exercise intensity, velocity of movement, fatigue, mental focus, movement phase and stability conditions, such as bar vibration or unstable surfaces. Under these circumstances, TB is the most common object of activity change.

CONCLUSIONS

PM and TB EMG activity is more dominant and shows greater EMG amplitude than anterior deltoid during the BP. There are six factors that can influence muscle activity during the BP; however, the most important factor is exercise intensity, which interacts with all other factors. The research on muscle activity in the BP has several unresolved areas, such as clearly and strongly defined guidelines to perform EMG measurements (e.g., how to elaborate with surface EMG limits) or guidelines for the use of exact muscle models.